We performed a comparison between Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Ruckus Wireless WAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless WAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Technical support has been good."
"The performance is very good."
"It's a good product and works well when there is a lot of interference."
"One could say that Cambium is a scalable solution."
"The product's scalability features are good."
"When we log in to the device, we can easily configure it. So it is quite user-friendly."
"Cambium Networks Wireless WAN is scalable. The XV2 model of the solution can support up to 216 people at a time."
"The claim management feature is exceedingly simple."
"Tech support is good."
"The actual wireless access points themselves are very powerful."
"The strongest point for Ruckus has always been the radio hardware."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN’s most valuable feature is unleashed."
"There are numerous features, but what I like about Ruckus is that they have a good coverage range due to their BeamFlex technique."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution."
"One of its notable advantages lies in the superior performance of its antennas and radios."
"Ruckus has multiple radios. Therefore, it supports high speed for users and clients. Other vendors have fluctuations in speed. The main thing about Ruckus is that you can trust it and rely on its speed. I am simply satisfied with it."
"The Cambium user interface and configuration should be improved."
"Sometimes there are some latencies in devices. Otherwise, it is, for some time, not as stable."
"The solution's price could be better."
"Cambium Networks Wireless WAN could improve by providing a better signal range."
"Cambium's solution is flexible for various connectivity needs, although there are limitations based on the specific equipment and metrics. The indoor coverage typically reaches up to sixty meters and may require external antennas for optimal performance and for outdoor connectivity, Cambium Networks offer excellent scalability and coverage, especially with sectorial access points."
"The modulation could be optimized for better performance, and the configuration should be made adaptive to ensure dynamic adjustments as needed."
"The solution needs to add an LTE solution and/or something in 3.5GHz."
"There is room for improvement in the support."
"I would like to have a better built-in reporting feature."
"I would like to see IoT device support available with WiFi six. IoT is used by all businesses. They are now using IoT devices. It is required."
"The documentation they do have is very difficult to understand. There should be some scenarios, deployments, complications, or techniques to follow. They are inadequate in that regard, and the documentation needs to be greatly improved."
"Pricing is an area for improvement. The devices are relatively expensive."
"The solution could use a better user interface."
"Technical support is something that needs to be improved."
"The solution needs to offer more analytics."
"Pricing could be improved in Ruckus Wireless WAN because obviously, everybody wants things to become cheaper. Another room for improvement in the product is from a delivery perspective, particularly the heavy delivery delays because of the chip shortage that a lot of manufacturers have to deal with. The chip shortage is not coming to an end, but Ruckus Networks has to make a plan because the ETA has slipped out from the average of three months on switches to fourteen months, which is very, very rough on the industry at the moment. Ruckus Wireless WAN could lose business to Chinese competitors, for example, HTC has a good wireless solution that I haven't tested yet, other than on POC, and it works great. I haven't yet experienced the HTC wireless solution in large deployments, so you never know how it's going to go, but HTC has managed to circumvent the chip shortage, so the ETA provided by HTC is much more preferred than the ETAs provided by Ruckus Networks, Cisco, and Aruba products."
More Cambium Networks Wireless WAN Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cambium Networks Wireless WAN is ranked 3rd in Wireless WAN with 23 reviews while Ruckus Wireless WAN is ranked 2nd in Wireless WAN with 45 reviews. Cambium Networks Wireless WAN is rated 8.6, while Ruckus Wireless WAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cambium Networks Wireless WAN writes "Provides point-to-point and point-to-multipoint connectivity and user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ruckus Wireless WAN writes " Offers robust outdoor connectivity, but signal strength and support need improvement". Cambium Networks Wireless WAN is most compared with Ubiquiti Wireless, Cisco Wireless WAN and Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, whereas Ruckus Wireless WAN is most compared with Ubiquiti Wireless and HPE Wireless WAN. See our Cambium Networks Wireless WAN vs. Ruckus Wireless WAN report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless WAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
